IMO the logic here is fatally flawed when comparing a trial jury with believing in gods or not. In a trial, jurists are faced with evidence for BOTH sides. In such a situation it is a tenable position that people can be undecided. However, in matters of god, there is no evidence for gods but plenty of evidence to support the contrary, that nature is entirely explainable by natural phenomenom. The god concept and the moralities that go with the concept were written down in bibles were written by power hungy humans. There is not a stitch of evidence for the veracity of any of its stories. And no matter how any given dictionary says about the defintion of agnosticism, the vast majority of people who call themselves agnostics, in Canada anyway, use it to mean they don't know either way whether there's a god or not, as if there was evidence for both and they simply could not make up their mind. This is ridiculous, there is no evidence for both, there is only evidence of nature at work.